Is the Universe Determistic?

Great Debates
1

Well there’s the question. Is the universe deterministic?

Take any slant you like. This question has been sitting on my mind for a long time now and has a nasty tendency to dissolve into overlapping questions and circular thinking.

We have Newtonian physics vs Quantum physics, the question of whether our past experiences precisely define our future decisions, and of course the question of God granting us free will (I’m sure there’s another thread that’s managed to deviate off the point and on to that subject somewhere).

Help me make sense of this, type what you will. If the universe is not deterministic, I’m sure these mental exercises have a point somewhere; if the universe is not, then they’re inevitable anyway.

Have fun!

2

I suppose you could argue it either way, but in any case, whats the point? If you think that now true free will exists, then I have no choice but to believe in free will (because I currently do), therefore, your arguement is useless.
However, from a scientific perspective, I’m pretty sure that physics says that some thing are literally random, that is, they can go any which way. So the universe isn’t toally deterministic. I’m not very accomplished in atomic theory, though, so take this with the usual grain of salt.

3

You might find Libertarian’s recent thread The Metaphysics of Materialism of some interest; determinism pops its head up there more than once.

4

Quite a few questions regarding the use of determinism which I would appreciate…

One: is the OP discussing determinism from a fate-based perspective? (everything set in stone, so to speak)

Two: is the OP discussing the existence of free will or just randomness? (interesting hijack: information theory holds that a completely random sequence contains the most information… could we then say that free will, if it exists, must be randomness? Hail Eris!)

Three: Speaking of randomness, are we saying that a deterministic universe is physically set but unpredictable or inherently unpredictable: that is, there is never enough information to predict the universe (given the answer to two in either form, actually)? restated: is it random or does it just seem random to us (to those of us who think it is random)?

How I respond doesn’t greatly vary to the OP’s response to those questions, however. I just find the distinction pleasing.

IMO, yes, determinism exists in the form that past actions can be show to follow a cause-and-effect pattern, and yet the future is unknown and inherently unknowable. No, free will doesn’t exist in the usual sense of the word (where we are truly spiritually free agents) but rather we simply think we have free will (which also wasn’t a choice) and this view, pretty much, follows as a direct consequence of the previous sentence. That is, we seem like we have free will because we cannot predict the future, and yet any reflection on the past shows us we “really” only had one choice that we considered viable (because we only did one thing, see?).

5

At the ultimate macro level (universe=“everything”), determinism and free will reconcile anyway.

Determinism says “all actions are causally determined by location, momentum, and effects from the current environment”.

Free will says “actions are determined by the actor making choices, (usually in order to attain a desired result)”.

Choices are not made in a vaccuum (indeed, in a vaccuum there are no choices to be made, or things to make them about). Mostly, when a free-choice proponent or defender takes exception to deterministic language, it is because the deterministic explanation takes the form “Action X on the part of Actors 1 through n are caused by Stimulus X”, where Stimulus X is an environmental factor, a prior shared experience, or the social location (socioeconomic status, age, etc) of the Actors. Free will proponents reject such mechanical explanations for behavior, and correctly so, since they are invariably incomplete and of low accuracy when applied predictively to individuals.

But if you say “Action X on the part of Actor 1 is caused by Stimuli X.1 through X.n” where n equals the sum total of all objects and experiences in the universe since the dawn of time, you’ve taken into account everything that could be taken into account by Actor 1, making the difference between free will and determinism one of sentence construction alone.

From the hints offered us by our studies of “chaos” (sensitive dependence on initial conditions), it seems reasonable to say at this point that REDUCTIONISTIC deterministic models of behavior are intrinsically flawed. You would, in practice, in order to be able to predict the behavior of sentient individuals flawlessly, have to have at your disposal more data than you could reasonably be expected to acquire by any means other than living the life of the individual whose actions you are trying to predict, firsthand.

So, in spirit, the arguments of the “free will” contingent were correct, and those of the “determinism” folks incorrect.

6

Quantum Mechanics works, so the universe is not deterministic, some things are truly random. However, nothing is completely random - the laws of physics limit the possible outcomes drastically.

I think free will operates at a different level of description than the laws of physics. Volition cannot be given a physical description, it only has meaning in the context of thoughts, emotions, desires, and other “high-level” descriptors.

7

Erm, flawed how exactly? Though reductionist models of deducing underlying cause from a chaotic structure is certainly difficult if not impossible that isn’t to say that such constructs aren’t able to be understood in a reductionist frame. They are simply difficult to work backwards from, so to speak. The classic Mandelbrot set is guided by a very, very simple equation. Though in practice, with the math we currently have, it is very difficult to find the underlying equation it is, none-the-less, there, and if we start instead with the intitial conditions (about as reductionist as one can get) we do find the chaotic structure as a consequence. Rather, it seems that the holisitic perspective is flawed: once we are looking at the big picture we can’t reduce it. Interestingly enough, however, both models, starting from their respective points (post-structure and pre-structure) can yield the same results within, I’m sure, reasonable error ranges.

For effects like weather we need to take the holistic approach and use the current state to predict following states based on the previous states. However, if we (reductionist-wise) had access to the starting conditions we could certinaly come up with the same answers… of course, the big problem is the degree of accuracy and precision required for reductionist analysis is staggaring compared to the calculations we may perform in the holistic models.

So, I guess, they are both “flawed” because one requires a degree of precision we cannot achieve and the other is unable to predict with the precision we desire.

We’re fucked! LOL :smiley:

FriendRob said, “Quantum Mechanics works, so the universe is not deterministic, some things are truly random.” though I try not to make it a habit to view poster’s comments in one thread with respect to my memory of their comments in another, I must admit this baffles me completely after g8rguy’s QM thread. As far as we can tell, the past is set as much as it needs to be in QM. Though determinism isn’t quite so rigid as it was in a classical model an inability to predict the future in no way undermines the solidity of the past… no?

8

Actually, this isn’t quite way they say. Actually, something like, “A perfectly (en)coded message would be indistinguishable for random noise, unless you had the key”

So a perfectly coded message may look like a random sequence, it does not follow that a completely random sequence would need to carry any information.

None the less, a very thoughtful post in my opinion.

9

I’m compelled to note that there’s no such thing as determinism.

10

Thanks for the correction there, scott. Even with that distinction it does remain in interesting question. :slight_smile:

11

Clearing up a few points on the OP:

Forget the practicalities of acquiring knowledge of all the initial parameters in a situation. If you had them in front of you and if you could process them all 100% accurately, would you end with a result that had a 100% certainty of occuring or would it produce either a range of end results or simply a probability instead?

Also, the free will thing: looking at Fate and looking at Free Will have the same outcome. Either approach is fine.

But hey, these points are neat. Keep them coming

ta,

Shill

12

Ok, lets see if I can come up with a well thought opinion.

Yes and NO! (Don’t ya just hate when people do that?)

I will keep my examples within the solar system and hope to support both sides but qualified by scale.

First the yes. In large-scale events, it would appear to be a definite yes. Given from above that it is not deemed impossible to have perfect knowledge of the position of the sun, planets and all the minor bodies AND all the foreign bodies that may drift through our system in the course of eternity. And also given that I have perfect unlimited computing power, it would appear that the fate of our solar system is perfectly deterministic. (However, at the end I will posit some possible things that might mess this up)

Next the no. In small-scale events, it just simply isn’t gonna work. Even if you completely violated the uncertainty principal and was able to know with precision each and every molecule’s position and motion, the weather and therefore all of history would not be deterministic. I will elaborate. At the atomic scale there IS randomness to motion. Even with perfect knowledge of position and speed, there are situations where the outcome of a collision, etc is not predictable. You simply can’t figure out where each and every atom/molecule is gonna wind up. (If you need a little more info on this concept, look up matter wave and matter diffraction rings in beginning quantum mechanics). You may do a REALLY good job at predicting the “general” weather for a while (days/weeks), but sometimes, large-scale events are influenced by the small. Imagine you have a storm, and lightning is about to strike out of that storm. Where ionized atoms are in the air matter to the precise timing and placement of a lightning strike. Changing the placement of a lightning strike even one inch could make the difference between a forest fire or not. The instant one large scale event like that is influenced by a small scale event, the future of world is not deterministic on a local scale.

A thanks for staying with me so far, but here comes a little more.

Back to the large scale. I can think of reasons that the large scale MAY not be completely deterministic. Lets say that with your perfect knowledge and computing power you know perfectly well that two small orbiting bodies are gonna collide. The exact outcome of that collision may not be deterministic. The precise cleaving points of the objects breaking up may not be completely deterministic. The quantum states of some of the atoms at the very moment of impact could change the way the objects cleave. If you can’t predict that perfectly, you can’t very well predict what is going to happen with all the resulting smaller pieces. So, that would end it. You may be able to do VERY well for a VERY long time, but knowing every detail forward forever, just ended.

On a philosophical bent, if I predict that several billion years from now that sun will go red giant and destroy all remnants of history in this solar system and then it happens, is that a perfectly accurate forecast? I guess it could be argued that if the intervening history is destroyed in the final cataclysm it (that history) simply doesn’t matter and the final prediction is only what matters? I don’t personally like this concept myself.

13

I was wondering if you would challenge me on this…

First, I think “deterministic” should only apply to the future, i.e., the future is not determined because, even in our most accurate theories (QM or theories based on QM like QED/QCD) we can only make probabilistic predictions. Whether the past is “determined” is unclear in QM, but also not really relevant. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.)

As far as my philosophy of QM, I think it is actually consistent with my post in this thread. In my view, QM tells you about possible outcomes without giving you an underlying model of “what’s really going on”. So, predictions are probabilistic, even though the wave function evolves in a deterministic way. Furthermore, in my view, there is no sense in talking about the “wave function of the universe”, so in some global sense QM makes no prediction about the future of the universe.

BTW, chaos theory doesn’t cause any problems for determinism in principle, it just says things may be very difficult to calculate. In fact, most work in chaos theory assumes a deterministic underlying equation. scotth has it right, though, that at some level QM indeterminacy comes in, and can affect the large-scale behavior (orbit of planet, e.g.) because of chaotic effects. But it’s the quantum behavior that is the source of the indeterminacy, not the chaotic nature of the large-scale system.

14

Wow, better explanation of my explanation than I gave. Does that make sense? But at least I know someone read my whole long rambling post.

15

Er, um, are you saying “we” as in, “humans with this level of technology are only able to etc” or “we” as in, “The future isn’t deterministic because it is impossible in principle etc etc”? I agree that we cannot do it; I agree that the universe cannot do it; I am not certain which you are stating.

See, here again you seem to give credence to some facsimile of randomness at the base level of interaction. You don’t find wave-functions to have any real meaning. This demonstrates that regardless of the state of predictability of the future (by us or in principle) that the past is certainly determined: it did happen. The only question that remains is if there is some form of causality, some link between past events and current events. Without a waveform or waveform collapse the past is certainly deterministic, now you just have to deal with causality.

The Shill:

IMO… erm, ummmmm, yesssssss—ish? I do feel that there are real matter-waveforms which do collapse when required to give definitative answers about their fundamental states, so if we could observe the initial conditions of the universe (assuming that there is such a thing) then we can predict how things could be… but not with any precision because so little is required of fundamental particles when they aren’t giving up fundamental information. The universe could have been in any number of different states at any instant in time to yield the same results. So, we could predict a bunch of different universes, and one of those universes would be ours.

16

I guess the whole thing boils down to one definition in my mind… and that is the definition of deterministic.

The definition that I am applying is this: ALL future events in EVERY (even the smallest) detail could be PERFECTLY predicted into the future for all perpetude provided you knew the starting conditions in adequate detail and had the computing power to do so.

Under this definition, I would have to say the answer is no. There are events that could go two (or more ways) and I would agree that it could be possible to determine all the possibilities and assign a probably of each occurance. But, you could never assign 100% probability to every event.

17

i know this isnt quite on the same lines as the others but anyhoo…

scientists claim that much of our personality (worry levels etc)is genetic, and so you inherit personality traits from your parents. There are other factors in your personality but they all seem to boil down to what has happened to you as a child, they are based on outside influences, eg. if you had parents that abused you (yes this is the extreme) then that will affect sexual relationships in the future. and then the way you react to people in these relationships will affect them.

i guess my point is; is there really free will? are all your choices just assumations of all your past experiences, is everything you do, the way you act and the way you react to situations, a direct result of the way people have acted towards you in the past, in short, are our choices predetermined?

18

This topic seems to have been approached from the “if we added everything together could we perfectly predict the future” perspective. I prefer to look at determinacy or indeterminacy of a single event rather than the cumulative determinacy of some ever-elusive “future.” It may be a minor distinction, but it does help to simplify the issue. For whatever it’s worth, I also question the relevance to which quantum theory is capable of being directly applied to the issues of determinism in any meaningful way—especially since so little is actually known about quantum mechanics. Incomprehensible quantum phenomena is not necessary chaotic or random in the clichéd grand scheme of things.

19

Sarky: I guess that’s the other deep point that’s been bugging me. It’s easy to imagine that, for instance, if I had a bad trip on acid I may not try it again, thus past experiences obviously do have a bearing on future decisions. But how deep does it run? My education, my parents and the newspapers I read all influence my language, but does their cumulative effect define exactly how I phrase this sentence rather than just influence it through my patterns of speech?

Determinist dude also: The building block for the determinism is always going to start from the small events. Every large event is built up from myriad smaller ones (incidentally, the idea that every event is made from infinite smaller ones can be used to prove that motion is impossible, that it is not possible to get from A to B and that it is not even possible to leave A. That is, until you realise you’ve divided infinity by itself).

When Heisenberg was developing his uncertainty theory, it wasn’t a case of him saying ‘there is no cause and effect’ - there may be underneath the inherent uncertainty in the universe, however it’s pointless questioning it because we can never actually know due to the fact that we can’t know all the information about everything.

Aristotle came up with some ideas about causes too - Imagine I drop an apple and it falls. The material cause is the fact that the apple was in a situation where nothing supported it, and so it fell. The efficient cause is that I let go of the apple, and the formal cause is that gravity’s action on the apple will by nature cause it to fall. He also came up with the idea of a ‘Final Cause’ - the purpose of the apple falling…

So if there is a grand scheme of things, an ultimate purpose or Final cause, does determinacy matter as long as the universe gets there eventually?

Thanks for bothering to get this far, congratulations, you made it.

Shill.

20

I would have to suggest that much more about quantum machanics is known than you realize. A very great deal is known and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. And…

A single fairly early experiment is enough to support the claim concerning determinism. This involves the prediction of matter waves.

The prediction said that an electron beam (particles) would produce interference rings just like light when passed through a diffraction hole or grating. It did.